Sarath Dharmasena and Shyam Nuwan Ganewatta Courtesy The Island

September 20, 2017, 10:55 pm

Justice K. T. Chitrasiri yesterday said former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendra should abide by the law. Although the Counsel for Mahendran had said that Mahendran was a Singaporean, once appointed as Governor he was under Sri Lankan law, Justice Chitasiri said at the conclusion of Mahendran’s evidence led by his counsel.

Mahendran received appointed from President Maithripala Sirisena in January 2015 on the recommendation of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. President Sirisena declined to extend Mahendran’s term in mid 2016 in the wake of the second bind scam in march 2016.

Referring to the media coverage in the wake of the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) deciding not to compel owner of Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) Arjun Aloysius to give evidence, Justice Chitrasiri said that though the CoI didn’t respond to media reports, he availed himself the opportunity to clarify matters.

Mahendra

Justice Chitrasiri emphasized that the ruling given in respect of Arjun Aloysius wouldn’t apply to Mahendran.

Justice Chitrasiri pointed out that Arjun Aloysius said that he had been accused of irregularity in respect of Central Bank bond transactions. Although, Arjun Aloysius had said that he could face criminal charges in High Court over alleged transaction whereas Mahendran didn’t say such things.

Justice Chitrasiri: “Mahendran didn’t say he can be an accused. He came before the CoI willingly. Therefore, CoI can compel him to give evidence.”

Justice Chitrasiri said that the CoI had decided against compelling Arjun Aloysius to give evidence in accordance with the law.

Justice Chitrasiri said that the CoI had refrained from compelling Arjun Aloysius as he could have moved higher court and caused substantial delay in the CoI process.

The CoI chairman said the decision had been taken to in accordance with the Section 16 of the Presidential CoI Act.

5 Responses to “Mahendran must testify, says commission”

There is now sufficient evidence in the public domain as evinced by above Commission of Inquirey into the Central Bank Bond Scam, for the Attorney General’s office to file charges against the perpetrators of the Central Bank Bond Scam, apprehend them and make way for the due process of law to take its course. This is the only way the People of Sri Lanka can witness that the third pillar of governance in Sri Lanka, the Judiciary is really independent.

People of Sri Lanka have been wronged, robbed and are now paying for the resultant losses through higher taxed, loss of interest to EPF holders, higher interest rates for borrowings and VAT increases on commodities. Lost monies should be recouped and where possible the Bond Transactions of Feb 2015 and March 2016 should be annulled before the illgotten funds could be laundered or whisked away.

We sincerely hope that the Commission of Inquiry now taking place will not become another eye-wash as has been the case of hundreds of previous commissions of inquiry.

That is what it should be. But why was his son-inlaw Aloysius dxempted. He also has to giveevidence and cannot refuse to do so.. In doing that Alosyious accepted his guilt. He should be recalled before the Commission and his evidence too should be recorded. Otherwise it would be a miscarriage of justice.

Regarding Aloysius, the reason why the CoI refrains from compelling him to give further evidence, is that Aloysius has admitted culpability and expressed fear that he could be charged, and therefore has invoked the right to avoid self-incrimination, and testifying against and incriminating himself further.

In the US, this right against self-incrimination is embedded in the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. Of course, “taking the 5th” is a red flag to the prosecution to redouble their investigative efforts and prosecute the related crimes.

I guess Sri Lanka’s system of law has a similar protection against forcing people to incriminate themselves. In such cases the Legal Authorities must INDEPENDENTLY gather and supply the evidence needed for prosecution.

Leave a Reply

Disclaimer: The comments contained within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site.
All views and opinions presented in this article are solely those of the surfer and do not necessarily represent those of LankaWeb.com.

This entry was posted
on Wednesday, September 20th, 2017.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.